Time: Tue Jan 14 21:45:51 1997 by primenet.com (8.8.4/8.8.4) with ESMTP id SAA03935; Tue, 14 Jan 1997 18:18:09 -0700 (MST) release 1.8c) with spool id 19158 for LIBERTARIANS@LISTSERV.ARIZONA.EDU; Tue, 14 Jan 1997 18:11:12 -0700 listserv.arizona.edu (AIX4.2/UCB 8.7/8.7) with ESMTP id SAA28422 for <LIBERTARIANS@LISTSERV.ARIZONA.EDU>; Tue, 14 Jan 1997 18:11:11 -0700 (MST) by primenet.com (8.8.4/8.8.4) with SMTP id SAA00914 for <LIBERTARIANS@LISTSERV.ARIZONA.EDU>; Tue, 14 Jan 1997 18:10:52 -0700 (MST) Message-ID: <3.0.16.19970114212204.08cfa108@mailhost.primenet.com> Date: Tue, 14 Jan 1997 21:22:07 -0800 <LIBERTARIANS@LISTSERV.ARIZONA.EDU> <LIBERTARIANS@LISTSERV.ARIZONA.EDU> From: Paul Andrew Mitchell [address in tool bar] Subject: all rights reserved? To: LIBERTARIANS@LISTSERV.ARIZONA.EDU >Date: Tue, 14 Jan 1997 21:20:48 -0800 >To: Psyberdude <rturmel@clark.net> >From: Paul Andrew Mitchell [address in tool bar] >Subject: all rights reserved? >Bcc: friends, liberty lists > >At 07:11 PM 1/14/97 -0500, you wrote: >>Paul what does "all rights reserved without prejudice" mean? I notice >>that you affix this sometimes to letters you mail to people. >> >>Is it something I should use also? > > >Dear Psyberdude, > >Nobody answered that question >better than the late Howard Freeman, >in his classic essay entitled >"The Two United States and the Law," >which follows: > >/s/ Paul Mitchell > > > "The Two United States and the Law" > > by > > Howard Freeman > P. O. Box 364 > Lusk, Wyo. 82225 > > >Our forefathers, weary of the oppressive measures that King >George III's government forced upon them, in common declared >their independence from England in 1776. They were not expected >to be successful in that resistance. The moneyed people had >backed England for two major reasons. First, our forefathers >wanted a rigid, written Constitution "set in concrete." They >were familiar with the so-called Constitution of England which >consisted largely of customs, precedents, traditions, and >understandings, often vague and always flexible. They wanted the >principle of English common law, that an act done by any official >person or law-making body beyond his or its legal competence was >simply void. Second, the thirteen little colonies desired to >base their union on substance (gold and silver) -- real money. >They well knew how the despotic governments of Europe were >mortgaged to the hilt -- lock, stock, and barrel, the land, the >people, everything -- to certain wealthy men who controlled the >banks, the currency, and all credit, who lent credit but did not >loan gold and silver! > >The United States of America was made up of a union of what is >now fifty sovereign States, a three-branch (legislative, >executive, and judicial) Republic known as The United States of >America, or as termed in this article, the Continental United >States. Its citizenry live in one of the fifty States, and its >laws are based on the Constitution, which is based on Common Law. > >Less than one hundred years after we became a nation, a loophole >was discovered in the Constitution by cunning lawyers in league >with the international bankers. They realized that a separate >nation existed, by the same name, that Congress had created in >Article I, Section 8, Clause 17. This "United States" is a >Legislative Democracy within the Constitutional Republic, and is >known as the Federal United States. It has exclusive, unlimited >rule over its citizenry, the residents of the District of >Columbia, the territories and enclaves (Guam, Midway Islands, >Wake Island, Puerto Rico, etc.), and anyone who is a citizen by >way of the 14th Amendment (naturalized citizens). > >Both United States have the same Congress that rules in both >nations. One "United States," the Republic of fifty States, has >the "stars and stripes" as its flag, but without any fringe on >it. The Federal United States' flag is the stars and stripes > >with a yellow fringe, seen in all the courts. The abbreviations >of the States of the Continental United States are, with or >without the zip codes, Ala., Alas., Ariz., Ark., Cal., etc. The >abbreviations of the States under the jurisdiction of the Federal >United States, the Legislative Democracy, are AL, AK, AZ, AR, CA, >etc. (without any periods). > >Under the Constitution, based on Common Law, the Republic of the >Continental United States provides for legal cases (1) at Law, >(2) in Equity, and (3) in Admiralty: > > >(1) Law is the collective organization of the individual right > to lawful defense. It is the will of the majority, the > organization of the natural right of lawful defense. It is > the substitution of a common force for individual forces, to > do only what the individual forces have a natural and lawful > right to do: to protect persons, liberties, and properties; > to maintain the right of each, and to cause justice to reign > over us all. Since an individual cannot lawfully use force > against the person, liberty, or property of another > individual, then the common force -- for the same reason > -- cannot lawfully be used to destroy the person, liberty, > or property of individuals or groups. Law allows you to do > anything you want to, as long as you don't infringe upon the > life, liberty or property of anyone else. Law does not > compel performance. Today's so-called laws (ordinances, > statutes, acts, regulations, orders, precepts, etc.) are > often erroneously perceived as law, but just because > something is called a "law" does not necessarily make it a > law. [There is a difference between "legal" and "lawful." > Anything the government does is legal, but it may not be > lawful.] > > >(2) Equity is the jurisdiction of compelled performance (for any > contract you are a party to) and is based on what is fair in > a particular situation. The term "equity" denotes the > spirit and habit of fairness, justness, and right dealing > which would regulate the intercourse of men with men. You > have no rights other than what is specified in your > contract. Equity has no criminal aspects to it. > > >(3) Admiralty is compelled performance plus a criminal penalty, > a civil contract with a criminal penalty. > > >By 1938 the gradual merger procedurally between law and equity >actions (i.e., the same court has jurisdiction over legal, >equitable, and admiralty matters) was recognized. The nation was >bankrupt and was owned by its creditors (the international >bankers) who now owned everything -- the Congress, the >Executive, the courts, all the States and their legislatures and >executives, all the land, and all the people. Everything was >mortgaged in the national debt. We had gone from being >sovereigns over government to subjects under government, through >the use of negotiable instruments to discharge our debts with >limited liability, instead of paying our debts at common law with >gold or silver coin. > >The remainder of this article explains how this happened, where >we are today, and what remedy we have to protect ourselves from >this system. > > > Our Present Commercial System of "Law" > and the REMEDY Provided for Our Protection > >The present commercial system of "law" has replaced the old and >familiar Common Law upon which our nation was founded. The >following is the legal thread which brought us from sovereigns >over government to subjects under government, through the use of >negotiable instruments (Federal Reserve Notes) to discharge our >debts with limited liability instead of paying our debts at >common law with gold or silver coin. > >The change in our system of law from public law to private >commercial law was recognized by the Supreme Court of the United >States in the Erie Railroad vs. Thompkins case of 1938, after >which case, in the same year, the procedures of Law were >officially blended with the procedures of Equity. Prior to 1938, >all U.S. Supreme Court decisions were based upon public law -- >or that system of law that was controlled by Constitutional >limitation. Since 1938, all U.S. Supreme Court decisions are >based upon what is termed public policy. > >Public policy concerns commercial transactions made under the >Negotiable Instrument's Law, which is a branch of the >international Law Merchant. This has been codified into what is >now known as the Uniform Commercial Code, which system of law was >made uniform throughout the fifty States through the cunning of >the Congress of the United States (which "United States" has its >origin in Article I, Section 8, Clause 17 of the Constitution, as >distinguished from the "United States," which is the Union of the >fifty States). > >In offering grants of negotiable paper (Federal Reserve Notes) >which the Congress gave to the fifty States of the Union for >education, highways, health, and other purposes, Congress bound >all the States of the Union into a commercial agreement with the >Federal United States (as distinguished from the Continental >United States). The fifty States accepted the "benefits" offered >by the Federal United States as the consideration of a commercial >agreement between the Federal United States and each of the >corporate States. The corporate States were then obligated to >obey the Congress of the Federal United States and also to assume >their portion of the equitable debts of the Federal United States >to the international banking houses, for the credit loaned. The >credit which each State received, in the form of federal grants, >was predicated upon equitable paper. > >This system of negotiable paper binds all corporate entities of >government together in a vast system of commercial agreements and >is what has altered our court system from one under the Common >Law to a Legislative Article I Court, or Tribunal, system of >commercial law. Those persons brought before this court are held >to the letter of every statute of government on the federal, >state, county, or municipal levels unless they have exercised the > >REMEDY provided for them within that system of Commercial Law >whereby, when forced to use a so-called "benefit" offered, or >available, to them, from government, they may reserve their >former right, under the Common Law guarantee of same, not to be >bound by any contract, or commercial agreement, that they did not >enter knowingly, voluntarily, and intentionally. > >This is exactly how the corporate entities of state, county, and >municipal governments got entangled with the Legislative >Democracy, created by Article I, Section 8, Clause 17 of the >Constitution, and called here The Federal United States, to >distinguish it from the Continental United States, whose origin >was in the Union of the Sovereign States. > >The same national Congress rules the Continental United States >pursuant to Constitutional limits upon its authority, while it >enjoys exclusive rule, with no Constitutional limitations, as it >legislates for the Federal United States. > >With the above information, we may ask: "How did we, the free >Preamble citizenry of the Sovereign States, lose our guaranteed >unalienable rights and be forced into acceptance of the equitable >debt obligations of the Federal United States, and also become >subject to that entity of government, and divorced from our >Sovereign States in the Republic, which we call here the >Continental United States?" We do not reside, work, or have >income from any territory subject to the direct jurisdiction of >the Federal United States. These are questions that have >troubled sincere, patriotic Americans for many years. Our lack >of knowledge concerning the cunning of the legal profession is >the cause of that divorce, but a knowledge of the truth >concerning the legal thread, which caught us in its net, will >restore our former status as a free Preamble citizen of the >Republic. The answer follows: > >Our national Congress works for two nations foreign to each >other, and by legal cunning both are called The United States. >One is the Union of Sovereign States, under the Constitution, >termed in this article the Continental United States. The other >is a Legislative Democracy which has its origin in Article I, >Section 8, Clause 17 of the Constitution, here termed the Federal >United States. Very few people, when they see some "law" passed >by Congress, ask themselves, "Which nation was Congress working >for when it passed this or that so-called law?" Or, few ask, >"Does this particular law apply to the Continental citizenry of >the Republic, or does this particular law apply only to residents >of the District of Columbia and other named enclaves, or >territories, of the Democracy called the Federal United States?" > >Since these questions are seldom asked by the uninformed >citizenry of the Republic, it was an open invitation for >"cunning" political leadership to seek more power and authority >over the entire citizenry of the Republic through the medium of >"legalese." Congress deliberately failed in its duty to provide >a medium of exchange for the citizenry of the Republic, in >harmony with its Constitutional mandate. Instead, it created an >abundance of commercial credit money for the Legislative >Democracy, where it was not bound by Constitutional limitations. >Then, after having created an emergency situation, and a >tremendous depression in the Republic, Congress used its >emergency authority to remove the remaining substance (gold and >silver) from the medium of exchange belonging to the Republic, >and made the negotiable instrument paper of the Legislative >Democracy (Federal United States) a legal tender for Continental >United States citizenry to use in the discharge of debts. > >At the same time, Congress granted the entire citizenry of the >two nations the "benefit" of limited liability in the discharge >of all debts by telling the citizenry that the gold and silver >coins of the Republic were out of date and cumbersome. The >citizens were told that gold and silver (substance) was no loner >needed to pay their debts, that they were now "privileged" to >discharge debt with this more "convenient" currency, issued by >the Federal United States. Consequently, everyone was forced to >"go modern," and to turn in their gold as a patriotic gesture. >The entire news media complex went along with the scam and >declared it to be a forward step for our democracy, no longer >referring to America as a Republic. > >From that time on, it was a falling light for the Republic of >1776, and a rising light for Franklin Roosevelt's New Deal >Democracy, which overcame the depression, which was caused by a >created shortage of real money. There was created an abundance >of debt paper money, so-called, in the form of interest-bearing >negotiable instrument paper called Federal Reserve Notes, and >other forms of paperwork credit instruments. > >Since all contracts since Roosevelt's time have the colorable >consideration of Federal Reserve Notes, instead of a genuine >consideration of silver and gold coin, all contracts are >colorable contracts, and not genuine contracts. [According to >Black's Law Dictionary (1990), colorable means "That which is in >appearance only, and not in reality, what it purports to be, >hence counterfeit, feigned, having the appearance of truth."] > >Consequently, a new colorable jurisdiction, called a statutory >jurisdiction, had to be created to enforce the contracts. Soon >the term colorable contract was changed to the term commercial >agreement to fit circumstances of the new statutory jurisdiction, >which is legislative, rather than judicial, in nature. This >jurisdiction enforces commercial agreements upon implied consent, >rather than full knowledge, as it is with the enforcement of >contracts under the Common Law. > >All of our courts today sit as legislative Tribunals, and the so- >called "statutes" of legislative bodies being enforced in these >Legislative Tribunals are not "statutes" passed by the >legislative branch of our three-branch Republic, but as >"commercial obligations" to the Federal United States for anyone >in the Federal United States or in the Continental United States >who has used the equitable currency of the Federal United States >and who has accepted the "benefit," or "privilege," of >discharging his debts with the limited liability "benefit" >offered to him by the Federal United States ... EXCEPT those who >availed themselves of the remedy within this commercial system of >law, which remedy is today found in Book 1 of the Uniform >Commercial Code at Section 207. > >When used in conjunction with one's signature, a stamp stating >"Without Prejudice U.C.C. 1-207" is sufficient to indicate to the >magistrate of any of our present Legislative Tribunals (called >"courts") that the signer of the document has reserved his Common >Law right. He is not to be bound to the statute, or commercial >obligation, of any commercial agreement that he did not enter >knowingly, voluntarily, and intentionally, as would be the case >in any Common Law contract. > >Furthermore, pursuant to U.C.C. 1-103, the statute, being >enforced as a commercial obligation of a commercial agreement, >must now be construed in harmony with the old Common Law of >America, where the tribunal/court must rule that the statute does >not apply to the individual who is wise enough and informed >enough to exercise the remedy provided in this new system of law. >He retains his former status in the Republic and fully enjoys his >unalienable rights, guaranteed to him by the Constitution of the >Republic, while those about him "curse the darkness" of >Commercial Law government, lacking the truth needed to free >themselves from a slave status under the Federal United States, >even while inhabiting territory foreign to its territorial venue. > > > ADDENDUM > >U.C.C. 1-207:4 Sufficiency of reservation. > >Any expression indicating any intention to preserve rights is >sufficient, such as "without prejudice," "under protest," "under >reservation," or "with reservation of all our rights." > >The Code states an "explicit" reservation must be made. >"Explicit" undoubtedly is used in place of "express" to indicate >that the reservation must not only be "express" but it must also >be "clear" that such a reservation was intended. > >The term "explicit" as used in U.C.C. 1-207 means "that which is >so clearly stated or distinctively set forth that there is no >doubt as to its meaning." ... > > >U.C.C. 1-207:7 Effect of reservation of rights. > >The making of a valid reservation of rights preserves whatever >rights the person then possesses and prevents the loss of such >right by application of concepts of waiver or estoppel .... > > >U.C.C. 1-207:9 Failure to make reservation. > >When a waivable right or claim is involved, the failure to make a >reservation thereof causes a loss of the right and bars its >assertion at a later date .... > > >U.C.C. 1-103:6 Common law. > >The Code is "Complementary" to the common law which remains in >force except where displaced by the Code .... > >A statute should be construed in harmony with the common law >unless there is a clear legislative intent to abrogate the common >law. ... "The Code cannot be read to preclude a common law >action." > > > EXAMPLE > >Your Honor, my use of "Without Prejudice UCC 1-207" above my >signature on this document indicates that I have exercised the >"Remedy" provided for me in the Uniform Commercial Code in Book 1 >at Section 207, whereby I may reserve my Common Law right not to >be compelled to perform under any contract, or agreement, that I >have not entered into knowingly, voluntarily, and intentionally. >And, that reservation serves notice upon all administrative >agencies of government -- national, state and local -- that I >do not, and will not, accept the liability associated with the >"compelled" benefit of any unrevealed commercial agreement. > > > # # # ==================================================================== [Text is usually formatted in Courier 11 non-proportional spacing @] [65-characters per line; .DOCs by MS-WORD for MS-DOS, Version 5.0B.] Paul Andrew Mitchell, B.A., M.S., email address: pmitch@primenet.com ship to: c/o 2509 N. Campbell, #1776, Tucson, Arizona state [We win] We can decode all your byte streams, spaghetti code notwithstanding. Coming soon: "Manifesto for a Republic" by John E. Trumane ie JetMan ====================================================================
Return to Table of Contents for
Supreme Law School: E-mail